Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
First off, I love this conversation. I’m delayed because of a combo of sleep deprivation and working on a major design project in CAD. My creative CAD mindset is not very compatible with such a philosophical subject.
Do you believe there is some force that justifies separating the collective governing entity as conditional? If the stereotypical person is only shamed into submission by a threat of violence, what forces are in play that curb the same behavior when they collectivize? Why should the governance turn inward only? In your apple analogy, there are two fundamental forms of violence, both the individual stealing – an act of offensive aggressive violence, and the merchant cheating the individual – an act of devious opportunity generally speaking. Why should a government only carry out this violence internally towards constituents, but not externally towards others in the equivalent of stealing the apple?
This is “how it follows” in my mind. A government is not independent of the people and cultures it represents. If the people are motivated by violence, so is the government, unless you have some kind of mechanism that can clearly alter why one can act in some different way than the other. If there is such a mechanism, I would argue that this is the deeper fundamental truth.
This seems extremely idealized and unrealistic compared to reality. The State does nothing against most theft on both sides of transactions. Almost all goods sold are being cheated to various extents in the USA. I’ve worked retail and even when several thousands of dollars are involved, the police are useless. If their coercion is my only ethical or moral regulation, it is a poor motivator.
I think the vast majority of people historically and in the present are honest and want to be fair with each other. The majority of history is anonymous because good, regular honest people do not write or record their mundane lives. The recorded accounts that exist are from or about the notable monsters.
When I ran my business painting cars, I dealt with lots of dishonest businesses. I was cheated many times, but that burns bridges. I worked with many of the same 3rd party vendors at many different used car dealerships. We would all talk about stuff like this. When someone doesn’t pay their bills, everyone basically pulls the business’s credit and demands immediate payment, raises their rates, or stops working with the business. Those people never did well or stayed in business for very long. It is never in a person’s best interest to behave badly in their local region. At the individual level, the person is not primarily restrained by a threat of violence, but because of opportunities and stability required for cohabitation. The only scope where one is restrained by violence, in my opinion, is if long term planning and well-being are not factors. In this context, we may as well substitute humans for any other moderately complex animal.
That is offensive to me because of my situation and how the people that caused my physical disability had no repercussions. I was priced out of any restitution. I am quite literally the collateral damage with my life wrecked by this in so many ways I am not going to mention.
Anyways, I acknowledge that there is a threat of violence, but I don’t see that as any deterrent myself. I view this violence like shame based ethics in religion. Shame can’t motivate positive behavior. It can only discourage what it labels as wrong behavior. I find all such systems of ethics deeply flawed. They incentivise opposing behavior without getting caught, and they create a culture without individual independent ethics. If this is the only motivation, I can easily thrive by not getting caught.
How would you describe your awareness of all the products you interact with daily? Could you tell me how each product you encounter is being exploited for dishonest profit?
I understand the premise, but it comes across as unrealistically idealist in practice and execution to the point where holding it up linea standard is a billboard for why one should violate it in practice.
My policy is to trust openly, but never forgive infractions against me. I have no expectations of enforcement by some government. I only take measured risks I can afford to lose.